"art"- what is it good for?

[El Roranous]

I actually like that painting....it's creepy to me.

 

[Bannister]

I actually like that painting....it's creepy to me.

Then you sir will not be invited to ProgMatinee's birthday party this year you sick ****.

 

[TOE]

Is that really a painting? If so, the artist did a really great job.

 

[Rook]

I think that a healthy, civil, discourse about this subject is good so please stay on subject, and no insulting other members please.

You're a butt-monkey, Lonnie...

All personal attacks remaining aside where they belong, Prog, I hope you realize that you're just a layman when it comes to art. So am I, for that matter. Neither one of us has what it takes to judge what should or should not be in an art museum. Opinions remain opinions until they're backed up by some intelligent criticism. You've told all of us, for instance, that the Nazi image appalled you. But you neglected to tell us why it appalled you. So there's really no discussion there. Just a statement of opinion.

If the image disturbed you in some way, ask yourself why it did so. Maybe you'll learn something new about yourself. (I'm drawing dangerously close to repeating my original post here, so if you need a refresher, just go back and read it again.) Maybe there's something about the image that you need to come to terms with. (Or maybe you're an Indiana Jones fan and you just don't like Nazis.)

What troubles me about your posts the most is your undying conviction that you have the moral high ground. And, whether you know it or not, your previous post (at 3:42 my time) was so rife with logical fallacies that I can only encourage you to stop talking about it, for your own sake.

At no point did anyone suggest that you were planning to physically remove the art, subsequently breaking "property law." To take what was actually said and to suggest something else entirely is an example of the "Straw Man" logical fallacy.

So, too, is your suggestion that we are "censoring" you for suggesting that you simply acknowledge that the art does nothing for you and, therefore, to just walk away from it. Censorship in any form requires some sort of governmental manipulation, or an act of will from a controlling body. We're just a group of your peers offering advice. What you choose to do with it will either benefit you, or it won't.

 

[Andy Bergholtz]

Yep Art should be as varied as people themselves are. We need it all.

Trev

Cheers to that!



On another note, having read the 'buffy' thread mentioned earlier, I think any artist who doesn't develop a very thick skin and tolerance for scathing, sometimes distasteful criticism, might want to consider another hobby (for their own health!). Anyone who creates art (especially art that is remotely controversial) invites judgment whether they like it or not. I'm not saying you should find joy in being cut down, just realize that the vast majority of people out there simply don't have the capacity to understand art (sadly those are most often the folks who are quickest to attack it), and thus certain criticisms should not be taken personally. Rise above, man.




p.s. Trev, I love your new sig.

 

[Rook]

I mean what gets you, the fact that a couple of joes are wearing SS Nazi uniforms?

When I read this, my brain read, "wearing Sideshow Nazi uniforms."

By the way, Prog, great discussion topic. I haven't been this jazzed on the boards in a long time.

 

[Bannister]

Cheers to that!



On another note, having read the 'buffy' thread mentioned earlier, I think any artist who doesn't develop a very thick skin and tolerance for scathing, sometimes distasteful criticism, might want to consider another hobby (for their own health!). Anyone who creates art (especially art that is remotely controversial) invites judgment whether they like it or not. I'm not saying you should find joy in being cut down, just realize that the vast majority of people out there simply don't have the capacity to understand art (sadly those are most often the folks who are quickest to attack it), and thus certain criticisms should not be taken personally. Rise above, man.

By the way, you are a hack Andy and your "art" sucks.

 

[Bannister]

When I read this, my brain read, "wearing Sideshow Nazi uniforms."

 

[Andy Bergholtz]

By the way, you are a hack Andy and your "art" sucks.

Y'know, if I didn't already happen to agree with this statement, I just might take offense to that.






p.s. For the record, I am a craftsman. I don't have the creative chops to be an "artist".

 

[Bannister]

Y'know, if I didn't already happen to agree with this statement, I just might take offense to that.






p.s. For the record, I am a craftsman. I don't have the creative chops to be an "artist".

Well, then your craftsmanship sucks too. You like most people are hardest on yourself apparently. Anyone who can sculpt an Aragorn like yours is an artist in my opinion.

 

[Andy Bergholtz]

Well, then your craftsmanship sucks too. You like most people are hardest on yourself apparently. Anyone who can sculpt an Aragorn like yours is an artist in my opinion.

Well thanks, I appreciate that. Although don't forget Tim Miller had just as much influence on that Aragorn likeness as I did, if not more.

 

[Bannister]

Well thanks, I appreciate that. Although don't forget Tim Miller had just as much influence on that Aragorn likeness as I did, if not more.

Both of you deserve praise then. It is by far the best Aragorn likeness I have seen, even if it was only sculpted by a craftsman.

 

[ProgMatinee]

Hey guys, I want to say in no way am I trying to take any sort of moral highground or say that I am "right". Merely that the sharing of ideas is important from both sides and that IMO the established art society caters to the artist and not the artist's viewership when it comes to reciprocating "discussion". Ie an artist can create something with a "message", put it out there for all to see and often times themselves take the stance of "don't censure me" or "just turn away if you don't like it" which basically is a get out of jail free card and automatically gives them the highground. In addition, any controvesy basically becomes free publicity.

To further the discussion, the reason I took offense to the picture above was because it pulls Jesus down to the level of Hitler. In case no one noticed, the painting is a take on the "Madonna with Child" that is prevelant in Christian art.

Basically, I take it as an anti-Christian piece which personally struck a chord with me (ironically the Jethro Tull album of a VERY similar nature I use as an avatar is one of my favorite records and for some reason doesn't hit there as bitterly, hey I'm a humanbeing and built with idiosyncrities that may appear hypocritical to others).

I think everyone here has a great point, and I don't feel bad mentioning something that maybe I'm wrong about if it generates an interesting discussion.

 

[TOE]

I showed this painting to a friend of mine right now and asked her opinion about it. This is her interpretation:

The baby symbolizes Jesus and depending if the baby is circumcised or not tells if the baby is a Jew or not. But, since the hair is parted in a way like Hitler's hair, the baby symbolizes the birth of Hitler or the messiah much like Jesus was.

 

[Bannister]

I showed this painting to a friend of mine right now and asked her opinion about it. This is her interpretation:

The baby symbolizes Jesus and depending if the baby is circumcised or not tells if the baby is a Jew or not. But, since the hair is parted in a way like Hitler's hair, the baby symbolizes the birth of Hitler or the messiah much like Jesus was.

I didn't do any of that. Just thought you would like to know.

 

[Darklord Dave]

This is a worthy thread, although I'm sorry that the maligning of that Buffy statue was then instigator.

Just a few comments:
That really looks more like a photo than a painting. If it's a painting then I'd say it's "art" just from the execution.

Also we don't know the context in which the picture is displayed. If it's a show about Nazi propaganda art that's one thing. If it's a show about "show your favorite family photo" then it's another thing entirely. The title of a piece can also tell us something about the author's intent in creating it.
If this piece is called "The Master Race" it's a different piece than if it's called "New Evil".

But whatever the art - the fact that the museum can display it and not be worried that an individual or a group or the government can make them take it down is what's important. Just as important as your right to voice your opinions about it.

 

[ProgMatinee]

I showed this painting to a friend of mine right now and asked her opinion about it. This is her interpretation:

The baby symbolizes Jesus and depending if the baby is circumcised or not tells if the baby is a Jew or not. But, since the hair is parted in a way like Hitler's hair, the baby symbolizes the birth of Hitler or the messiah much like Jesus was.

Thats my take. Without knowing for sure, I don't think the artist is trying to deitize Hitler or say a proNazi message, but rather "watch out for Jesus (and Christians) because they'll pull a Hitler". Obviously some already believe that, but still I found it a bit much.


Edit:

https://kristallnacht.helnwein.com/en_us/news/update/artikel_2630.html

FYI I got the picture from the above link. It sounds like he was a strong anti-Nazi but for me personally, his point seems to have been mistranslated into him attacking Christianity.

 

[BadMoon]

So I read some recent thread that got closed in the Buffy section because a piece of art got called out as gross or whatever and the maker was up in arms.

Anyway, it got me remembering how much I love art but hate artists....well, their apparent attitudes they often have anyway.

A year ago or so I was at the Denver Museum or Art and they had this painting which I found personally appalling:

Anyway, I mentioned to the museum people I didn't appreciate seeing it and they basically blew me off and said that the whole point of art was to challenge my beliefs or whatever. I was like, "f-that" and I cancelled my membership.

Anyway, I really like beautiful art, but often can care less about the political or social statement some artist is trying to force on me, but what really gets me is the artist's belief that I have no right to call it appalling or lame or criticize the message.

Anyone have thoughts on that?

Immature BadMoon Comment:
Damn that is one hot momma!

Attempt at a mature comment:
In the other thread I stated if you create controversial art you will almost always get a strong response. Especially if your art has anything to do with race, religion, politics, and sex. I would hope that most artists know this and as Andy described put up the thick skin. However I don't think insulting said artist is right either. I do feel that if presented as art you are also opening it up for discussion. If you don't want comments either good or bad it's probably not a good idea to share.

 

[Wetanut]

Amazing how subjective art (be it visual or aural or written) can be. I looked at the picture and I immediately thought: Beyond the obvious link to the birth of Hitler (hair parted and uncircumscised), it also reflects the male dominated society that the Nazi's seemed to embrace. The two men in foreground seems to be admiring the gender of the child, while the two men in back are looking at the woman as just an object...sexual as well as the brood mare for the male child -- it's especially striking since the "Madonna" is so very attractive. At the same time, the "Madonna" seems extremely proud of herself -- perhaps because she has managed to pop out a male (and one who resembles their idol)? The female Nazi is expressionless...perhaps one who has mindlessly accepted the prevailing dogma or has been beaten down by it? The classic "Madonna and Child" pose is satirical IMO since there is not a hint of the adoration nor acknowledgement of the holiness of the mother. I still haven't made up my mind about if the differences in the uniforms says anything....not well versed in them historically so I can't tell if the lighter one is the non-Nazi career soldier vs. the dark uniformed SS (Nazi). Why this long, drawn-out (and truly boring as in art history class) interpretation?

What I'm trying to say, albeit very clumsily, is that no matter how deeply or shallowly I decided to view this, not once did I even attach any relevance to anti-Christianity. Seemingly, ProgMatinee's initial objection was the mere showing of the hated Nazi uniform and all else was colored by it. Fair enough. It only goes to show that we will always perceive these things individually as we project our unique cultural and social background, life experiences, education, and biases onto them. There is no "Right" or "Wrong" interpretation. At the same time, there is also no need to insist to anyone what should be acceptable since we all have not only the right to have differing opinions, but also the right to not have these differing views imposed upon our own.

 

[DarkArtist81]

Cheers to that!



On another note, having read the 'buffy' thread mentioned earlier, I think any artist who doesn't develop a very thick skin and tolerance for scathing, sometimes distasteful criticism, might want to consider another hobby (for their own health!). Anyone who creates art (especially art that is remotely controversial) invites judgment whether they like it or not. I'm not saying you should find joy in being cut down, just realize that the vast majority of people out there simply don't have the capacity to understand art (sadly those are most often the folks who are quickest to attack it), and thus certain criticisms should not be taken personally. Rise above, man.




p.s. Trev, I love your new sig.

Very well said Andy. To be an artist, you must be able to accept criticism and possess humble qualities. Anytime I have ever told Les he paints exceptionally, he tells me that it's not that great. Same with Andy or Trevor, I tell them the work they did was great, they can always see something that they could have improved. To be an artist, you must have a critical eye. Be able to look over your finished work and continue to find flaws and weaknesses that can be improved upon. And if you cannot take a pummeling every now and again, it can get pretty hard to keep doing it.

I know that every now and again I just have a bad day and the work reflects it, and sometimes... I do my best and it turns out great... but still... could be better.

In this case, I respect WW for what he did. The artistry was great, but dealing with a concept such as he was... some criticism was bound to occur. It was a brave piece of art, to be said. I, myself, would never have attempted it. But I cannot judge him for doing so. It was still very well made and didn't deserve as much negative energy.

Still, an artist knows that such an item will no doubt cause a stir...